Frustrated by what she felt was a lenient plea bargain for two teens who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her and circulating pictures of the incident, a Louisville 17-year-old lashed out on Twitter.

“There you go, lock me up,” Savannah Dietrich tweeted, as she named the boys who she said sexually assaulted her. “I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.”

Now, Dietrich is facing a potential jail sentence, as the attorneys for the boys have asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt because they say that in naming her attackers, she violated the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the court’s order not to speak of it.

A contempt charge carries a potential sentence of up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.

“So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys,” said Dietrich, who waived confidentiality in her case to speak to The Courier-Journal. Her parents also gave their written permission for her to speak with the newspaper.

“I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it,” she said. “If they really feel it’s necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me ... as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don’t understand justice.”

The boys have not yet been sentenced.

The Courier-Journal is not naming them; the newspaper usually does not identify minors in juvenile court, with the exception of some cases, like murder.

Contempt hearing

Juvenile court is closed in Kentucky to protect the confidentiality of defendants, but Dietrich has consented to the media’s presence at her contempt hearing, which is allowed under state law.

A hearing is scheduled for July 30 in juvenile court to decide if the media will be allowed into the contempt hearing.

The Courier-Journal and Dietrich’s attorneys have filed motions to open the proceedings, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about what happened in her case and a right to a public hearing on the contempt charge.

The boys’ attorneys, however, have asked the court to continue the order barring Dietrich from speaking to the media about the assault case or allowing the newspaper or anyone else to witness the contempt hearing.

Emily Farrar-Crockett, deputy division chief of the public defender’s juvenile division and one of Dietrich’s attorneys, said her client was advised that her interview with the newspaper could “potentially” be a violation of the judge’s order.

“But she feels it’s important to speak out and chose to do so,” Farrar-Crockett said.

Dietrich’s attorneys did stop her from responding to questions about specific details of what happened in court and other issues they believe are currently sealed.

Judge Dee McDonald has not ruled on a motion to allow the newspaper to see the motions filed by attorneys for Dietrich, but she denied a reporter access to a hearing earlier this month where an attorney for the newspaper made an initial motion to intervene in the case.

Legal experts say such cases are becoming more common, in which people are communicating more frequently through social media and violating court orders not to speak.

“In the past, people would complain to anyone who would listen, but they didn’t have a way to publish their comments where there would be a permanent record, like on Facebook and Twitter, for people to see worldwide,” said Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va.

“It’s just going to happen more and more.”

Pictures of assault

Dietrich said she was sexually assaulted by two teen boys she knew in August 2011. She had been drinking at a gathering, she said, and became unconscious. Months later she learned that pictures of the incident had been taken and shared with others.

“For months, I cried myself to sleep. I couldn’t go out in public places,” she told the newspaper, as her father, Michael, and attorneys sat nearby. “You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?”

Dietrich and her parents went to Louisville Metro Police, who eventually charged the two juvenile defendants with first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and misdemeanor voyeurism, according information contained in the court motion filed by the newspaper.

The teens pleaded guilty to those charges in late June, though Dietrich and her family say they were unaware of the plea bargain and recommended sentence until just before it was announced in court — and were upset with what they felt was a slap on the wrist for the attackers.

“I felt like they were given a very, very light deal,” Dietrich said. “I wasn’t happy with it, at all.”

Neither Dietrich nor her attorneys said they could talk about the details of the plea agreement under the court order. The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge has the power to accept, reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement.

Their attorneys, Chris Klein and David Mejia, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Bill Patteson, spokesman for the Jefferson County attorney’s office, which handled the prosecution, said Friday that he could not comment on the case.

Following the plea, McDonald admonished everyone involved not to speak to anyone about what had happened in the court or about the crime in general, according to Dietrich.

“I was crying as she (the judge) was reading that,” Dietrich said. “They got off very easy ... and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end.”

Tweets posted

Angry after the June 26 hearing, Dietrich posted several tweets on her Twitter account naming the two teens who pleaded guilty.

“They said I can’t talk about it or I’ll be locked up,” Dietrich tweeted. “So I’m waiting for them to read this and lock me up. ____ justice.

“Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”

The newspaper was able to view the tweets on her account.

Farrar-Crockett said Dietrich looked at the laws of confidentiality before she tweeted and “tried not to violate what she believed the law to be,” not tweeting about what happened in court or was in court records.

Leslie, of the press freedom committee, said Dietrich should “not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That’s a wide-ranging restraint on speech.”

“By going to court, you shouldn’t lose the legal right to talk about something.”

But other legal experts said Dietrich knew the court’s order was in place and had a responsibility not to violate it, regardless of whether it was overly broad.

David Marburger, an Ohio media law specialist, said even if the judge is limiting freedom of speech with an order, “it doesn’t necessarily free you from that order. You have to respect the order and get the judge to vacate the order or get a higher court to restrain the judge from enforcing the order.”

Jo Ann Phillips, who heads Kentuckians Voice for Crime Victims, said she doesn’t blame Dietrich for standing up for what she felt was an injustice, but said she should have gone about it another way.

“This (assault) could affect her for the rest of her life and the fact that she said, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,’ you have to applaud her,” Phillips said. “But you also have to respect authority.

“ ... She should have gone to a victims’ group or her local legislator and fought for the right to speak out.”

Dietrich said that despite the judge’s order, she needed to stand up for herself. “I’m at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it.”

That doesn't make it right that she was sexually assaulted and then have pictures of that assault spread among her peers.

Are you seriously blaming the victim here?

Not at all, I think the guys definitely deserve to be prosecuted. But at the end of the day, they were all under age and shouldn't have been there in the first place. It was irresponsible for her to be in that situation, and it was irresponsible of the guys to take advantage of that.

Not at all, I think the guys definitely deserve to be prosecuted. But at the end of the day, they were all under age and shouldn't have been there in the first place. It was irresponsible for her to be in that situation, and it was irresponsible of the guys to take advantage of that.

Dietrich said she was sexually assaulted by two teen boys she knew in August 2011. She had been drinking at a gathering, she said, and became unconscious. Months later she learned that pictures of the incident had been taken and shared with others.

This is a lose for both. She can be put in jail, the boys probably might never get a job. Not saying they should get away scott free for what they did, but still.

they're not getting away scott free, they're both being charged, it's just that she didn't feel they were charged severely enough i guess. but that's why we don't let the victims have a say in the justice system, they are too biased

they often censor the names of adult criminals too, it's a way of ensuring that their life isn't completely ruined by one wrong action

For minor crimes, I'd agree, but rapists should be named, shamed and fucking castrated, why shouldn't people know about them, when the fact is, they could very well have ruined someone elses life with their one "wrong" action.

Rape is way beyond a "wrong" action. A wrong action would be, say speeding a little, or parking illegally or small time theft, Rape is way, way way above that, it's an intolerable, despicable action.

but that's why we don't let the victims have a say in the justice system, they are too biased

and yet the perpatrators have entered a plea bargain to have some of the charges lessened/removed. Real justice that is.

Why wouldn't it be getting winners? Is there something wrong with what the woman did? Oh right, she should just submit and respect the right to privacy people who raped/sexually assaulted her, and shared pictures of the event.

For minor crimes, I'd agree, but rapists should be named, shamed and fucking castrated, why shouldn't people know about them, when the fact is, they could very well have ruined someone elses life with their one "wrong" action.

Rape is way beyond a "wrong" action. A wrong action would be, say speeding a little, or parking illegally or small time theft, Rape is way, way way above that, it's an intolerable, despicable action.

and yet the perpatrators have entered a plea bargain to have some of the charges lessened/removed. Real justice that is.

do we even know if it's rape? and i'm not meaning like 'she was asking for it!' i mean, did they literally fuck her while she was out? and let's not go crazy with the castration thing mate, it's a justice system not a retribution system. i agree rape is fucked, and what these kids did was fucked, but i mean, they're stupid kids they were probably drunk too and they no doubt do not understand the severity of their actions. if we name and shame (i'm not gonna even bother with the castrate part) minors then we may as well have 3 lives ruined

do we even know if it's rape? and i'm not meaning like 'she was asking for it!' i mean, did they literally fuck her while she was out? and let's not go crazy with the castration thing mate, it's a justice system not a retribution system. i agree rape is fucked, and what these kids did was fucked, but i mean, they're stupid kids they were probably drunk too and they no doubt do not understand the severity of their actions. if we name and shame (i'm not gonna even bother with the castrate part) minors then we may as well have 3 lives ruined

Well, they were charged with first degree sexual abuse, which is rape.

Just because they didn't understand how severe their actions were, doesn't mean they should get punished less. As bas as rape, or even sexual abuse is, it's one thing to do it, and an entirely new level of despicability to not only do it, but then record it (in their case pictures) and distribute it.

Frankly, there's a whole load more charges that could have and should have been brought against them, especially if she's under age in her state (which, frankly i have no clue when it comes to the US) creation and distribution of child pornography, is what they should be charged with as well

Well, they were charged with first degree sexual abuse, which is rape.

Just because they didn't understand how severe their actions were, doesn't mean they should get punished less. As bas as rape, or even sexual abuse is, it's one thing to do it, and an entirely new level of despicability to not only do it, but then record it (in their case pictures) and distribute it.

Frankly, there's a whole load more charges that could have and should have been brought against them, especially if she's under age in her state (which, frankly i have no clue when it comes to the US) creation and distribution of child pornography, is what they should be charged with as well

first degree sexual abuse isn't necessarily rape. and yes, it does mean they should get punished less. that's the whole reason we have the distinction between minors and adults in criminal courts.

I'm not blaming her but if you pass out at an underage party don't expect to leave the next day unscathed. She shouldn't have drank that much, nor should they have been taking pictures of them and circulating them.

Both parties we're irresponsible, however I do not agree with the boy's sentencing. They should have been punished far more than they were.

I'm sure it's of great comfort to the victim that they no doubt did not understand the severity of their actions.

I see no reason why she should respect their privacy, when what they did far, far from respected hers.

Yeah, I don't understand this. I mean she probably has proof and witnesses of what happened - photos and people who had them handed to them.
So she should have the upper-hand in this case. Hope the guys pay for what they have done.

don't get me wrong no way in hell am i defending their actions or trying to play down the severity of what they did but i mean, just because you disagree with a court verdict doesn't mean you should do something like this, especially if it means you're gonna fuck yourself over with charges too

For minor crimes, I'd agree, but rapists should be named, shamed and fucking castrated, why shouldn't people know about them, when the fact is, they could very well have ruined someone elses life with their one "wrong" action.

Rape is way beyond a "wrong" action. A wrong action would be, say speeding a little, or parking illegally or small time theft, Rape is way, way way above that, it's an intolerable, despicable action.

and yet the perpatrators have entered a plea bargain to have some of the charges lessened/removed. Real justice that is.

Because morons like you with you vigilante attitude throw due process out the window. The got charged with a crime, the punishment befits the crime, so once the punishment is over, they don't need to be beaten up every twelve seconds by idiots who think themselves more fair than the judge.

These are CHILDREN, there's no doubt they'll regret their actions by the time they get out of jail. Ruining their entire life is totally unjustified, because you're letting a biased news story get in the way of law.

do we even know if it's rape? and i'm not meaning like 'she was asking for it!' i mean, did they literally fuck her while she was out? and let's not go crazy with the castration thing mate, it's a justice system not a retribution system. i agree rape is fucked, and what these kids did was fucked, but i mean, they're stupid kids they were probably drunk too and they no doubt do not understand the severity of their actions. if we name and shame (i'm not gonna even bother with the castrate part) minors then we may as well have 3 lives ruined

A good argument generally has the word "fuck" less than twice, and here's a shocker:

http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/booklet_law.html posted:

Consent to sexual activity must be free and voluntary. It is not free and voluntary under the following circumstances:

Use of force, fear
Unlawful detention
Asleep, unconscious, intoxicated to point of being incapable

the justice system isn't about providing comfort to the victim it's about providing justice. she should respect their privacy because she was ordered by a court to do so.

And yet the court has no hesitation in silencing her because they are an authority. Ever heard of "Argument from authority"? Your entire argument is fallacious and you should be raped and have pictures distributed of it. But don't you dare say a word against me after the court. Court isn't about providing comfort. Even if you are legally raped.

Seems you're disputing the definition of rape. It was unwanted coercion ​through alcohol of sexual intercourse or penetration.
That is sexual assault. I'm not sure what else you can possibly be arguing.

And yet the court has no hesitation in silencing her because they are an authority. Ever heard of "Argument from authority"? Your entire argument is fallacious and you should be raped and have pictures distributed of it. But don't you dare say a word against me after the court. Court isn't about providing comfort. Even if you are legally raped.

Seems you're disputing the definition of rape. It was unwanted coercion ​through alcohol of sexual intercourse or penetration.
That is sexual assault. I'm not sure what else you can possibly be arguing.

first degree sexual abuse, not sexual assault. and well, i think a good argument also doesn't have 'you should be raped and have pictures distributed of it' either. what are you even talking about? i'm arguing for what the purpose of the court is, what do you want? the mob decides who's guilty and who's not? we have a justice system in place for a reason, because retribution-based vigilante justice is unethical.

first degree sexual abuse, not sexual assault. and well, i think a good argument also doesn't have 'you should be raped and have pictures distributed of it' either. what are you even talking about? i'm arguing for what the purpose of the court is, what do you want? the mob decides who's guilty and who's not? we have a justice system in place for a reason, because retribution-based vigilante justice is unethical.

Sexual assault is when there is additional injury resulting from the sexual abuse.

first degree sexual abuse, not sexual assault. and well, i think a good argument also doesn't have 'you should be raped and have pictures distributed of it' either. what are you even talking about? i'm arguing for what the purpose of the court is, what do you want? the mob decides who's guilty and who's not? we have a justice system in place for a reason, because retribution-based vigilante justice is unethical.

This reply has two things:
You nitpicked my incorrect use of abuse and assault.
You took rhetoric to display how idiotic your argument is for my belief on how justice is forked out. You know that's not the case.

So listen. The girl was intoxicated. Therefore, she could not voluntarily consent. If you want to say that she should be punished for naming the guys that did it, her story is out. That is humiliating and punishment itself for a victim of sexual abuse. But no, she faces jail time for bringing it out herself so that the case would be properly heard. The boys haven't been sentenced yet, so no comment on them. The entire issue isn't about the abuse case. It's about her facing jail time. And do you think it's fair that after bringing a humiliating and scarring story to light just to be heard, she has to suffer jail time? Do you think that's just?

This reply has two things:
You nitpicked my incorrect use of abuse and assault.
You took rhetoric to display how idiotic your argument is for my belief on how justice is forked out. You know that's not the case.

So listen. The girl was intoxicated. Therefore, she could not voluntarily consent. If you want to say that she should be punished for naming the guys that did it, her story is out. That is humiliating and punishment itself for a victim of sexual abuse. But no, she faces jail time for bringing it out herself so that the case would be properly heard. The boys haven't been sentenced yet, so no comment on them. The entire issue isn't about the abuse case. It's about her facing jail time. And do you think it's fair that after bringing a humiliating and scarring story to light just to be heard, she has to suffer jail time? Do you think that's just?

lol you're talking about nitpicking when you opened your argument with a comment on me using swear words. i'm not denying she was sexually abused? i said we don't know if she was RAPED (as in, they put their dick in her) because it doesn't explicitly say that, it says she was sexually abused which could be a number of things. but i guess that's semantics and not really relevant. you realize courtroom anonymity is there so that the victims and the accused are properly protected and that the case is heard in a fair and unbiased manner. she isn't making the case being heard properly, it already WAS. and no, obviously i don't think she should have jail time, she SHOULD be punished because she DID break the law, but in the same way that i don't believe minors should be punished as adults, i don't think distressed sexual abuse victims should be punished in the same way. so no, i don't think she should get jail time (which she won't, the point of a jury is that they can empathize with the situation of the accused and i don't see any court outside of iran giving a rape victim jail time) but i don't think she should get off of breaking court protocol because she didn't like the courts decisions.

This reply has two things:
You nitpicked my incorrect use of abuse and assault.
You took rhetoric to display how idiotic your argument is for my belief on how justice is forked out. You know that's not the case.

So listen. The girl was intoxicated. Therefore, she could not voluntarily consent. If you want to say that she should be punished for naming the guys that did it, her story is out. That is humiliating and punishment itself for a victim of sexual abuse. But no, she faces jail time for bringing it out herself so that the case would be properly heard. The boys haven't been sentenced yet, so no comment on them. The entire issue isn't about the abuse case. It's about her facing jail time. And do you think it's fair that after bringing a humiliating and scarring story to light just to be heard, she has to suffer jail time? Do you think that's just?

She didn't have to be punished to bring the story to light, she's being punished because she gave away the identity of the offenders.

lol you're talking about nitpicking when you opened your argument with a comment on me using swear words. i'm not denying she was sexually abused? i said we don't know if she was RAPED (as in, they put their dick in her) because it doesn't explicitly say that, it says she was sexually abused which could be a number of things. but i guess that's semantics and not really relevant. you realize courtroom anonymity is there so that the victims and the accused are properly protected and that the case is heard in a fair and unbiased manner. she isn't making the case being heard properly, it already WAS. and no, obviously i don't think she should have jail time, she SHOULD be punished because she DID break the law, but in the same way that i don't believe minors should be punished as adults, i don't think distressed sexual abuse victims should be punished in the same way. so no, i don't think she should get jail time (which she won't, the point of a jury is that they can empathize with the situation of the accused and i don't see any court outside of iran giving a rape victim jail time) but i don't think she should get off of breaking court protocol because she didn't like the courts decisions.

Ah, well I agree. That clears that up then. While I vehemently oppose argument from authority, the only differences is that I think she should be allowed to say whatever she wants but like you said that's against the idea of court anonymity.

I am kind of shocked that some people blame this girl for passing out. There is never an excuse for rape or sexual abuse, it doesn't matter if she was drunk, or if she was wearing revealing clothing, or if she had a history of being promiscuous. You don't have sexual contact with someone without their consent. If you do it is 100% your fault for acting like an animal, I hate victim blaming.

It really annoys me how lightly rape seems to be treated when it comes to sentencing, this is something that can ruin a person's life and the rapists/abusers often seem to just get a slap on the wrist.

I'm not blaming her but if you pass out at an underage party don't expect to leave the next day unscathed. She shouldn't have drank that much, nor should they have been taking pictures of them and circulating them.

"If you put your hand in a fire, expect to be burned." "If you drink around men, expect to be raped. "

Conclusion: rape safety is a woman's responsibility. And men are not rational creatures, but just a force of nature, like fire. And since men have decided they are objects rather than people, eliminating them for the safety of people is okay.

We should create a Men Department, like a fire department. People who educate the public on the dangers of men, and when there's a men outbreak, they rush to the scene and kill them.